I am here to voice my support forthe proposed EPA carbon limits. Iam someone who enjoys all things outdoors, I hunt and fish, hike, bike, and bird watch. All these things that Ienjoy are at risk unless we adopt new limits on carbon emissions. There have been a lot ofthings said about climate change in the past 20 years, and a lotoftime and money has been spent in tryingto convince the public thatthere is no crisis, there are only Chicken Little environmentalists crying the sky is falling. Idid a little research into those in the denying camp and found out somethingvery interesting, the men and tactics involved in climate change denial were the same men and tactics used in defendingthetobacco industry, denying acid rain, and denying CFC ozone depletion. William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, and Fred Singer have been in the fore when it comes to denial, creating doubts where none should exist, and cynically repeating things that are demonstrably false. Apparently in theirworldview, any regulation ofany industry is unnecessary and smacks of socialism. In my worldview, regulations are necessary for one very good reason, regulations thatare enforced work, and workwell, and industry has repeatedly shown that it prefers to continue polluting till forced to stop. Isaiah Berlin said it well, "Freedom forwolves has often meant death tothe sheep." Itwould seem thatthese regulations would be anything but controversial. The opponents ofclimate change have donetheirwork well, our nation leads the world in climate change ignorance, and they have succeeded in politicizing the debate to the pointwhere Ican reliably tell which side ofthe aisle a politician is from by his belief, ordisbelief, in climate change. We need to get past this partisan nonsense and do something now, not later, and Ifear thatwe, as a nation, have allowed vested intereststo continue down an unsustainable path forfartoo long as they benefitfrom a "debate" on climate change they manufactured and nurtured

.

.The economic argument is one that is trotted out every time an environmental regulation is proposed. In most cases, the economic impact has been negligible or non-existent. Tailpipe emissions, banning CFCs, these were going to cripple the economy! They didn't, and these regulations won'teither. We can't ignore the costs we already are paying for climate change, increased food costs caused by more severe weather, and the cost associated with weather related disaster relief. To complain about potential costs from proposed regulations while ignoring already occurring costs is disingenuous. No one is happy about someone losingtheirjob, butto over simplifythese regulations as awar on coal is wrong. Instead of being proactive and developing new technology to make coal truly "clean",the industry has chosen to do very little in this regard, preferring public relations campaigns to research and development. Ifthe product you provide is pollutingthe planet isn't itcommonsense to thinkthatthe regulation ofthe pollutant is in the best interests ofthe citizenry? The right ofa corporation to make a profit doesn'tsupersede the right ofthe populace to have a healthy environment. Many believe thatwe can have both a healthy economy and a healthy environment, they are not mutually exclusive. American ingenuity is unparalleled, we can solve the problem ofcarbon pollution, we can stop global climate change, but we need to act now, and these commonsense regulations are astep in the right direction. David A Imgrund Carlisle Pennsylvania